Mike Leigh Set to Direct 'Vera Drake 2' In 3D?
I mean... that's awesome right?
Photo: New Line Cinema
Just when you thought Blighty backroom abortions in the 1950s couldn't be any cooler, word from a source close to other sources that told me something I am hearing have alerted me to the rumor Mike Leigh is prepping a sequel to his 2004 Oscar-nominated drama Vera Drake. Of course, the most awesomest news here is that he will be doing it in 3D. On top of this, as one final gesture before closing shop, Miramax is also going back and converting Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky into 3D. Poppy will quite literally "pop" off the screen! Oh, and Steven Spielberg is looking to convert Schindler's List as well.
Of course, none of this is true, and why would it be? I mean, after all, what would any of those film's gain if they were presented in 3D? Not to mention the even sillier idea of converting a film from 2D into 3D. That's just dumb… right?
I bring this up because news has now surfaced that Warner Bros. is converting their upcoming Clash of the Titans remake and the final two Harry Potter films into 3D. This is news that makes my stomach churn as it's obviously not a move to improve the films in any way, it's simply a means to make a boatload more money.
According to Carl DiOrio's write up at The Hollywood Reporter the decision will cost Warner Bros. approximately $10 million per film ($5 million for the glasses and $5 million for the conversion). As I mentioned in my article concerning Avatar's box-office returns, "80 percent of theatrical revenue for the film came from 3-D ticket sales." At this moment Avatar has made $561 million at the domestic box-office, and using the same math I used in my previous article, Avatar's domestic total has received a bonus of approximately $105 million as a result of a hike in ticket prices for 3D screenings.
Over at Ain't It Cool News, Harry Knowles looks at Warner Bros.' decision saying, " This is AWESOME news… If you want a quick example of how Avatar is changing cinema – here you have it." I know this isn't what he means, but I could read that and say Yes Harry, I see how greed is becoming even more blatant as the cinematic landscape changes. After all, this isn't 3D as brought to you by James Cameron's Avatar, this is a last second decision looking for an extra buck.
Speaking of which, I should make it clear I'm only comparing the Warner Bros. move to Avatar because it's an obvious money grab not because either film will be on the visual level of Avatar. WB sees it as a way of spending $10 million and making an additional $30 or $50 million (perhaps Potter could even make it an extra $75 million per film). I'm not talking about films made in 3D from the get-go, I'm simply looking at this idea of taking a finished film and converting it with a gimmick and calling it better.
As studios try to convince audiences 3D somehow improves films I'm reminded of a quote from White Ribbon director Michael Haneke, which he gave to ComingSoon.net's Ed Douglas when asked about the lack of a score in his Cannes Palm d'Or-winning film:
In real life, you only hear music when it's actually being played. (chuckles) In general, musical score is only used to cover up the weaknesses of the film. If the film works dramatically and there's enough tension, then you don't need music. I always find it too easy. It's cheap and cowardly using music.
Now, Haneke is obviously taking this to the extreme (who doesn't love a well-executed score?), but — beyond the monetary gain — what is 3D if it isn't "used to cover up the weaknesses of [a] film"? And for those of you in the "but 3D films are closer to real life" camp, I would agree, if the the 3D came out of the screen and didn't go back into it.
I had a blast with Avatar and I am really looking forward to Alice in Wonderland, but I am praying the studio doesn't hold review screenings of Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in this converted 3D format. Honestly, I see it as showing weakness in the director. I wonder, after seeing the early trailers for Christopher Nolan's Inception doesn't it look like a film WB execs would be drooling over to convert to 3D? Do you think Nolan would let them?tev
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 15 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I think Nolan wouldn't, that is, if he really had a say in it.
Considering, and I know he's "gone Hollywood" but like, as a director even of action movies, he has always put the story first.
3D is entertaining yeah, but not essential by any means for 99% of films.
…that being said Howl in 3D is going to be siiiiiick.
I'm not sure by how much 3d cheapens a movie.
On one hand I think that movie studios are doing this in order to reduce the impact of piracy by making movies a must see experience on the big screen.
Sure, 3d will get old VERY quickly as a gimmick, and it doesn't add very much in movies that it wasn't originally made for. But if people prefer going to see a movie in 3d in the cinema rather than downloading it for free, is it really all bad?
i probly wont see anymore movies in 3d until avatar 2, but if its what people need to go see the movie it just makes sense, doesnt mean we have to go see them though
next up,
Scarface,
The Godfather
& Kill Bill……………..in 3D!!!!
Hey, as long as Harry Potter is playing on a 2D screen close to me, they can do whatever the fuck they want. I made an exception with Avatar and saw it in 3D twice (3D on a normal screen was unimpressive, but in IMAX it was amazing), in addition to the two times I saw it in 2D. And really, as much as I liked the IMAX 3D experience, I got just as much enjoyment out of the 2D movie. And I won't be making this exception for other movies. It's 2D for all of Pixar's upcoming offerings, and it's 2D for Harry Potter and whatever other movie that comes out with the 3D option.
I remember reading somewhere, after TDK was relesed, that Nolan said that he's not fond of 3D and believes IMAX is where the future of the blockbuster film is. And I kinda agree with him, seeing TDK in IMAX left much more impression on me than watching AVATAR in 3D (which was brilliant as well).
So I wouldn't fear of Inception going the 3D way, least not while Nolan is making decisions.
If you like spurious film facts like the one in this article, follow FilmUnfacts on Twitter. (Sorry for the spammy post, but we're a bunch of shameless self publicists, and the title of this article caught our eye).
Just find and replace the word "3D" with the word "color" in your article and reread it if you want to see how wrong you are, how absurdly luddite your position is. Heck, lots of film purists will still say black-and-white is the purest way to watch a movie and color just adds unnecessary detail. The anti-3D argument will no doubt be just as successful as theirs was. Now, granted, you could look at these few transitional cases and say this is the equivalent of "colorizing" a film that was intended to be black-and-white. But until I hear the director say that the 3D violates his intention for the film, I won't hold that position. These directors may have wanted to film in 3D if they had the option from the beginning. As Space Pocahontas might say, a filmmaker should be free to paint with all the colors of the universe…and all its dimensions.
Once again, overseas is partially dictating what we will see here. The article also stated that overseas audiences like 3D even more than here.
Hey, anyone remember when they made Creature from the Black Lagoon into 3D for TV and gave out glasses at Seven Eleven? Brad's "ridiculous" opening scenario could well play out as 3D moves to TV as planned.
Here's a great quote from a big Variety interview with James Cameron almost two years ago… I post it because of the last sentence, which shows how the first paragraph of this post would actually be a beautiful thing, if handled correctly:
I think it's a myth that you want deep focus in 3-D shots. I find the opposite is true. Selective focus, created by working at low f-stops with longer lenses, evolved as a cinematic technique to direct the audience's attention to the character of greatest narrative importance at a given moment. With 3-D, the director needs to lead the audience's eye, not let it roam around the screen to areas which are not converged. So all the usual cinematic techniques of selective focus, separation lighting, composition, etc., that one would use in a 2-D film to direct the eye to the subject of interest, still apply, and are perhaps even more important. We all see the world in 3-D. The difference between really being witness to an event vs. seeing it as a stereo image is that when you're really there, your eye can adjust its convergence as it roves over subjects at different distances. Convergence is the natural toe-in that the eye does to align the left and right eye images of objects at specific planes of depth. In a filmed image, the convergence was baked in at the moment of photography, so you can't adjust it. In order to cut naturally and rapidly from one subject to another, it's necessary for the filmmaker (actually his/her camera team) to put the convergence at the place in the shot where the audience is most likely to look. This sounds complicated but in fact we do it all the time, in every shot, and have since the beginning of cinema. It's called focus. We focus where we think people are most likely to look. So I've found that just slaving the convergence function to the focus works exceedingly well, and makes good stereo a no-brainer on the set.
Every time I watch a movie lately, from "300" to "Atonement," I think how wonderful it would have been if shot in 3-D.
—————————-
Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1
"Brokeback Mountain" in 3D, FTW!
Why so serious Brad? Warner Bros not forcing people to pay to see
the films in 3D. plus some people might actually like the choice
Yeah, I don't really dislike 3-D, but this last-second converting just for the sake of a quick buck is pathetic. I'm gonna be watching Clash and HP in good ol' 2-D. And in 3-D, the films that were actually made with it in mind, like Alice, Toy Story 3 and Tron Legacy.
As long as we have the option of seeing all of these films in 2D, I don't mind it. Stick the gimmick on the blockbusters and the tentpoles and the animated market. 3D is fine with me – 3D as the standard is NOT.
God, this entire 3D thing is going out of hand. There have been a bunch of 3D films before Avatar and no one got this excited. Suddenly Avatar has hit 2 billion and people suddenly start seeing $$$ and saying it has changed cinema forever. What a load of crock.
Although, I do think that the Kraken sequence in Clash of the titans would look amazing in 3D though, considering it looked so good on my small laptop screen.